My first questions go to the representatives from Canada's Venture Capital and Private Equity Association.

I would like to make a comment first. I am not sure how you will see it. On page 6 of your brief, you protest too much, methinks. Let us leave the histrionics to the lawyers. You say that the number of funded companies has dropped by 38% from 2005 to 2009. That seems to me to be a little coy for finance people. I feel that you should be talking about amounts of venture capital and providing annual averages or annual composite averages. Whatever, you get the right result anyway.

When we look at the figures, we see that they go from $1.7 billion to $1.35 billion in the two years you have chosen. That is right, because it comes to 39% over four years, but let's say that we might hope for more financial rigour.

I would like to highlight another point, the $300 million fund that you propose on page 8 of your brief. Would this $300 million be leveraged to get other investments? The amount seems much too small.

It would be one time...for six or seven years, let's say. Relative to what Teralys is doing in Quebec, which is $750 million, it is obviously not sufficient money. We saw that number as representing five or six or seven lead orders for five or six or seven funds, and that it would be leveraged probably three to one or four to one with private sector investment.

The Association of Consulting Engineering Companies' third recommendation mentions that the government could show some flexibility with the stimulation projects deadline.

Without getting into partisan politics, could we not say that, in October, given the weather conditions, the working conditions and the lack of materials, we can be more or less certain that the March 31 deadline to finish all the infrastructure projects is a bit of a stretch, and not in a good way?

First of all, I want to be fair to all parties. The government made it very clear to us right from the onset that this was not a long-term infrastructure catch-up program; this was a job creation program, and I think on balance it was largely successful.

The very rigid deadline has been a source of concern. You are quite correct, there are a lot of complications in delivering infrastructure projects. Aside from the inherent complexities of design and construction, you are quite right, the climatic challenges in Canada are severe. A well, we have three layers of government, sometimes four, and the coordination of regulatory approvals can be vexing.

We understand the government's intent; they don't want an open-ended program. We do understand that you need to have a deadline if you want things to get done, but I think we're asking for some pragmatism. Some of the delays are legitimate and justifiable. We're not asking for new money to be committed to this program; we understand this was a one-time program. We're simply looking at some flexibility in disbursing the previously announced funds. We're just looking for the practical.

We agree that there is a difference between keeping programs going for ever and having a program with finite amounts so that projects can be done in a reasonable time. If we insist on getting them done too quickly in order to meet the March 31 deadline, labour costs will clearly be higher, because we will have to pay for overtime and salaries could double. The price of some materials could go way up in that period too.

I agree that there is a very important distinction between the short-term programs and the long-term programs. Minister Baird was upfront with us from the beginning. We wanted long term; he was very clear that this was to address the short-term economic crisis. And in fairness, to a great extent it has done that. But you're quite right, not all projects lend themselves well to the stimulus program. That's part of the reason we're here, that as much as we are very happy to have had the stimulus program, it doesn't resolve a bigger issue, which is a long-term, chronic infrastructure deficit that's been dogging us for decades.

Mr. Lajeunesse, you are hoping too. How do you propose to get as many spinoffs from military purchases as possible if they are not bound by a contract? The government has said that it wants as many economic benefits as possible in Canada. But, without a commitment in a contract, isn't that just wishful thinking?

Absolutely not, Mr. Chair. Without exception, every Canadian company working in this area has repeatedly told us that they are ready, willing and able to be competitive, that the $12 billion target—which is a lot of jobs here in Canada— is perfectly attainable and that they are ready to sign contracts already. To date, some have been signed, to a value of around $1 billion. Personally, I am convinced that the companies are right and that they can reach the targets.

Speaking of volunteer firefighters, I would just like to point out that, last year, during the Bloc Québecois tour, we made recommendations to the Department of Finance that were more or less the same as theirs. I hope that, if we keep hammering away, they will get the message and the government will provide the tax credits that these people need in order to be able to do their work in all the towns and little villages in Quebec.

I'd just ask for clarification from our consulting engineering friends. There are two things.

First, I believe in your presentation you said that the clarification last week from Minister Flaherty that there would be some flexibility in looking at this was helpful. We're hearing from the opposition about this deadline, but you were comfortable with that commitment from the government, or from Mr. Flaherty, on that issue. Is that correct?

The challenge we have is that infrastructure assets in many cases typically have 50-, 65-, sometimes 100-year design lives, and what we're trying to do is deal with them in annual cash in, cash out budgeting cycles, and we're competing with other priorities. It's hard, and I think the economic crisis makes it even more imperative that we have a long-term game plan.

I have a quick question for our fire chief. Thank you for coming. I'm a little bit surprised at the Liberals' approach, saying they've always been supportive, because when they were in government they didn't do it. There were bills, in actual fact, that they were opposed to. I have Mr. Wilfert's quotes here as well as those of Ms. Jennings. Anyway, it's ironic that they say now that they're in favour of it.

However, my question was, and I may have missed it in the discussion, if you were to get the $3,000 non-refundable tax credit--and I'm glad you called it that--at the 200-hour mark, do we know what that will cost the treasury? Have you been able to figure out yet what that would cost the taxpayers of Canada?